Subject: Re: new.net (was: Root Server DDoS Attack: What The Media Did Not Tell You)

From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 20:26:37 +0100 (CET)

On Fri, 29 Nov 2002, at 14:08 [=GMT-0500], Keith Moore wrote:

> > > Well, it also matters that the set be constrained to some degree.
> > > A large flat root would not be very managable, and caches wouldn't
> > > be very effective with large numbers of TLDs.
> >
> > That's old fiction.  If it works for .com it will work for ".".
>
> well, it's not clear that it works well for .com.  try measuring
> delay and reliability of queries for a large number of samples
> sometime, and also cache effectiveness.

I guess the burden of proof is on those who argue that it doesn _not_
work well.

> let's put it another way.  under the current organization if .com breaks
> the other TLDs will still work.   if we break the root, everything fails.

Since .com was running _on_ the root-servers.net until recently
without problems, what are we talking about?

Naturally there won't be 1 million TLDs all at once. We could start
with a couple of hundreds. That would merely double the size of the
root.

---

From: "Stephen Sprunk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 11:13:04 -0600

Thus spake "Marc Schneiders" <[email-masked]>
> with a couple of hundreds. That would merely double the size of the

Okay, so when every foo.com. applies to become a foo., how will you control
the growth?  What is to keep the root from becoming a flat namespace within
a few weeks?  It won't take long for the masses realize that an SLD is not
as prestigious as their own personal TLD...

IMHO, the only solution to this problem is the elimination of gTLDs
entirely.

S

---

From: Rick Wesson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 10:01:11 -0800 (PST)

[ cc list trimmed ]

> as prestigious as their own personal TLD...

I know... a nameing hierarchy like in usenet but it will only be
controlling at the top -- then a organization will be CHARTERED to be the
caretaker of each of the top level names. maybe we'll start off with just
3 and see how it goes...

-rick

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 15:02:00 -0500

> The solution to the whole problem is of course to replace
> DNS by something better.

I don't think we're likely to be able to replace a globally unique,
federated namespace anytime soon.   As for other kinds of human-friendly
names, there have been lots of attempts to create them, and little 
success in actually getting people to use them.

---

From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 20:53:50 +0100 (CET)

> IMHO, the only solution to this problem is the elimination of gTLDs

Which would have the same result as what you predict for a few hundred
extra TLDs. The solution to the whole problem is of course to replace
DNS by something better. I've heard more than a few times in the past,
that it will be replaced by other functions/schemes/directories. Not
that I am aware of any that seems to qualify for all the functions so
far. Still, it would be quite on topic, if I may say so, to discuss
what we should develop to do a better job. Obsolete it, if you cannot
reform it?

---

From: "Eric A. Hall" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 03:20:02 -0600

on 12/2/2002 11:13 AM Stephen Sprunk wrote:

> Okay, so when every foo.com. applies to become a foo., how will you
> control the growth?

1/ no trademarks allowed

2/ competitive rebidding every two years

3/ mandatory open downstream registrations (no exclusions)

4/ high entry fees

> IMHO, the only solution to this problem is the elimination of gTLDs

There isn't enough demand to support more than a few dozen popular TLDs.
Generic TLDs are user-driven, with the market deciding which ones they
want to use. Geographic TLDs are completely arbitrary and favor the
functionary instead of the user.

-- 
Eric A. Hall                                        http://www.ehsco.com/
Internet Core Protocols          http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/

---

From: "Stephen Sprunk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 13:49:11 -0600

Thus spake "Eric A. Hall" <[email-masked]>
> > Okay, so when every foo.com. applies to become a foo., how will you

Every combination of characters is trademarked for some purpose in some
jurisdiction.  If you find some exceptions, I'll find some VC money and take
care of that; problem solved.

> 2/ competitive rebidding every two years

IBM is not going to like potentially losing IBM. every two years to someone
with more cash.  VeriSign's customers *really* won't like every registration
under VERISIGN. going away if VeriSign loses a bid.

> 3/ mandatory open downstream registrations (no exclusions)

A hierarchy without any kind of classification?  That just means everyone
will register their under every possible TLD and we'll get a million copies
of the same flat namespace.  Look at COM. vs NET. today, most SLDs from one
exist in the other, and VeriSign even offers a package where they'll
register your SLD in every single TLD that exists for one price.

> 4/ high entry fees

Well, that'll certainly be needed, since the root registrar will need a few
hundred DNS servers to handle the volume of new queries in the root now that
you've made a flat namespace.

> There isn't enough demand to support more than a few dozen popular TLDs.

Au contraire.  There are several dozens of popular ccTLDs, but only one
popular gTLD (out of what, 9 now?).

> functionary instead of the user.

That depends on the local functionary.  Many ccTLDs are completely free to
residents of the respective country.  And every one I've worked with has
better customer service than the registry for COM.

S

---

From: "Eric A. Hall" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 01:28:07 -0600

>  jurisdiction.  If you find some exceptions, I'll find some VC money
> and take care of that; problem solved.

Let's not get carried away. Trademark didn't stop .info and it won't stop
.car or .auto either.

> IBM is not going to like potentially losing IBM.

see item 1.

> A hierarchy without any kind of classification?

Nobody has been able to make any kind of classification work in the
generalized sense. Every classification scheme eventually proves to be
derived and arbitrary. Markets are chaotic, but the ordering that makes
sense to the customers does eventually emerge.

> COM. vs NET. today, most SLDs from one exist in the other, and VeriSign
> even offers a package where they'll register your SLD in every single
> TLD that exists for one price.

This is completely irrelevant.

>> 4/ high entry fees
> 
> Well, that'll certainly be needed, since the root registrar will need a
> few hundred DNS servers to handle the volume of new queries in the root
> now that you've made a flat namespace.

I don't see anybody arguing for a flat root. That may be the argument you
want to have but I haven't seen it suggested.

---

From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 22:03:18 +0100 (CET)

> > 4/ high entry fees

Who will get the money?

> you've made a flat namespace.

Not long ago it was mentioned here, that 98% of all queries to the
root-servers are typos etc, (NXDOMAIN replies). If there is a maximum
number of characters of 3, the traffic would not grow that much at
all, esp. since an NXDOMAIN is usually cashed shorter than a positive
answer. Whether a root-server has to answer: .cim doesn't exist, or:
.cim? go to a, b or c, it doesn't make much difference in load.